MARRIAGE MART.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 12740, 17 December 1904, Page 2 (Supplement)

MARRIAGE MART.

"HANGING AND WIPING GO BY DESTINY."

Some amusement was caused in the King's Bench Division when before a- Divisional Court 'he case of Hermann v. Chatlesvvorth was heard. It was defendant's appeal from a decision of Judge Woodfall, sitting in the Westminster County Court. Mr. Lush, for appellant, said the case raised a question as to the legality of contracts between the proprietor of a newspaper called the Matrimonial Post and Fashionable Marriage Advertiser and persons who subscribed to that paper, with a-view of obtaining introductions. Judgment was given for the return of £52 10s, which plaintiff, a lady, paid to the paper, on the ground that there was a failure of consideration. Miss Hermann saw an advertisement ill the paper, corresponded with the proprietor, and made a' contract with him. She was told that she would be introduced to a. number of gentlemen, and said she hoped to marry a marquis, (Laughter.) She paid defendant 50 guineas on. the terms that if nothing came of the introductions in nine months plaintiff was to get back '£47. He gave her 696 iddresses, and wrote a hundred letters for her. Mr. Compton Smith (for respondent) eontended that this was a marriage brokerage contract," as the judge had found as a fact that the money was paid on the representation of defendant that he could and would get plaintiff married. There was ample evidence to justify that finding. He put forward the case as one of constructive fraud; and it was on that ground that the Court had said that these contracts were to be reprobated. Miss Hermann saw this advertisement in a paper which was full of advertisements calculated to dazzle a credulous woman about the marriages of princes and noblemen. (Laughter.) She went 'and saw defendant at his office, and he made representations to the effect that lie had just, married a marquis and a lord, and she believed him. She had to fill up a form with particulars, and when she said she had £3000 capital defendant said, "Oh, fill in, £3000 income."... (Laughter.) The first contract was that in consideration of being introduced and in the event of marriage taking place she agreed to pay £250. That was a contract by defendant to bring about a marriage. Having got that contract, however,' defendant wanted some cash, although plaintiff paid him 5s for the interview. Then he suggested fifty guineas, and that she should be a special client, the contract- being that he should find a husband, and only keep that sum if one were found. Plaintiff sent the money, and then defendant sent back a receipt which did not represent the agreement, which was that he was only to be paid the,sum if a Husband were found. There was no consideration for the second contract, as it had been agreed that defendant- should hare £5150 for finding her a husband. He denied that the contract had been fulfilled in part, having regard to the samples of prospective husband introduced to the plaintiff. (Laughter.) The lady said that none of them were eligible, and one or \ more of them were- black. '■■'■■'(Daughters) • He thought it was said by Shakespere that;.j hanging and wiring went by destiny, and that was the view the English law had taken. (Laughter.) Therefore marriage ' brokerage contracts had been declared il- j legal. His case in the Court below was that ! if this was not a fraud it was very near one. I No doubt defendant denied plaintiff's statements as to the. £3000 income, etc.. but he I submitted that what had happened was ' mere flam, and that there had been no genuine and proper introduction to possible husbands. The Lord Chief Justice said the Court would conside. its judgment.